Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[Islineclear3_1]

Of course! I'm sure you've posted this somewhere....sorry, long week

 

[childwallblues]

All three are from the newly agreed batch of additional 319s for Northern freed up by the 387s.

Thank you for that. Can you tell me what the other three in this batch are please?

 

[physics34]

Thameslink have some "modest" refurbed units in service - quite super - (319004 /319438 recent ones travelled on) - bright clean interiors , new seating moquette , DMI matrix and a new mobility toilet pod and multi functional area alongside. Softer lighting.

An old hard working unit can be "made good" .....

slight disappointing is the reduction in toilets from 2 to 1. Just needs a fault with the sliding door or the tank to be full and everyones in trouble

 

[Llama]

Not sure if mentioned yet, but driver training for Wigan and Manchester Victoria crews will be starting in the not too distant future, Wigan drivers will do the static training at Preston (probably Pitt Street carriage sidings, on the left as you head north out of the station for the uninitiated, the pair of sidings nearest to the station though not those outside the powerbox - they are Croft Street sidings). Manchester Victoria drivers will do their static training at Stockport carriage sidings. Training will encompass theory, practical (static) and practical handling training.

 

[Class377/5]

slight disappointing is the reduction in toilets from 2 to 1. Just needs a fault with the sliding door or the tank to be full and everyones in trouble

It is a legal requirement to have a fully accessible loo for post 2020 so unless you reduce seating capacity, you can't have it both ways.

 

[edwin_m]

It is a legal requirement to have a fully accessible loo for post 2020 so unless you reduce seating capacity, you can't have it both ways.

Either that or no toilet at all.

The 319s converted for the Brighton expresses had a small and a large toilet fitted next to each other in the same coach, but I think the accessibility rules changed and this wouldn't be compliant with the latest ones.

 

[8A Rail]

Not sure if mentioned yet, but driver training for Wigan and Manchester Victoria crews will be starting in the not too distant future, ............. snip ................Manchester Victoria drivers will do their static training at Stockport carriage sidings. Training will encompass theory, practical (static) and practical handling training.

Then when L&M line is finally up and running, do their hands on driver training on the Lime St - Airport trains I imagine.

 

[Whistler40145]

Does this mean a Class 319 being out based at Stockport Carriage Sidings for the static training?

 

[thealexweb]

Does this mean a Class 319 being out based at Stockport Carriage Sidings for the static training?

How will it get there?

 

[Whistler40145]

Don't know, but could be ECS Allerton to Stockport via Crewe?

Since the driver training runs have been to Crewe, do those drivers have route knowledge of Crewe to Stockport?

 

[physics34]

It is a legal requirement to have a fully accessible loo for post 2020 so unless you reduce seating capacity, you can't have it both ways.

just like the 377s another toliet (non accessible) should have been installed.

Dont think losing 4-6 seats would be a major issue...considering the DfT want people to stand anyway!!

 

[WatcherZero]

Either that or no toilet at all.

The 319s converted for the Brighton expresses had a small and a large toilet fitted next to each other in the same coach, but I think the accessibility rules changed and this wouldn't be compliant with the latest ones.

You only need one specifically wheel chair toilet but standard toilets do need to meet a certain standard too. May have been too cramped.

 

[Techniquest]

379 and 382 are required 319s here, good news they're coming to Allerton

Good news more crews are being trained up now, not much longer to wait now then!

 

[Grumpy]

just like the 377s another toliet (non accessible) should have been installed.

What's the justification for saying this? They're only going to be used on relatively short journeys.
One toilet doesn't seem to be a problem on the 333's. To say nothing of LU, services with no toilet, local buses etc.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

It is a legal requirement to have a fully accessible loo for post 2020 so unless you reduce seating capacity, you can't have it both ways.

Does this mean a unit being taken out of service if the (only) accessible loo isn't working?

 

[Techniquest]

Does this mean a unit being taken out of service if the (only) accessible loo isn't working?

LM manage to run trains quite happily with no working facilities! It's a long way from Liverpool Lime Street to Birmingham New Street when you've been on 507s and 508s

 

[Llama]

Re 319 training:

Then when L&M line is finally up and running, do their hands on driver training on the Lime St - Airport trains I imagine.

Possibly, although those Lime Street drivers who are trained on 319s will need to work them fairly soon to keep knowledge retention on them, it is possible if paths exist that a training special might run. If so I doubt it would run from Stockport.

Does this mean a Class 319 being out based at Stockport Carriage Sidings for the static training?

Yes, in fact more than likely two 319s as the static training also includes attaching & detaching units and related faults and failures.

How will it get there?

There is one Man Vic driver manager who signs 319s and probably retains Stockport CS on his card, other than that it would be a case of a Man Vic/Picc driver who signs Stockport CS route conducting a Lime St driver who signs 319s. Piccadilly drivers aren't being trained on 319s for the foreseeable.

Since the driver training runs have been to Crewe, do those drivers have route knowledge of Crewe to Stockport?

No, those are Lime Street drivers - they only sign Piccadilly to the Airport as far as South Manchester goes. And as far as I know it is only Lime Street driver instructors who sign Crewe, for the purposes of route-conducting Lime Street drivers, in order for them to amass their practical handling time during 319 training. It was found that the only decent paths available to amass sufficient constant driving time on the training ECS including the higher speeds necessary was between Liverpool and Crewe - despite nobody at (Northern) Liverpool until very recently actually signing the route to Crewe!

 

[fowler9]

Re 319 training:

Possibly, although those Lime Street drivers who are trained on 319s will need to work them fairly soon to keep knowledge retention on them, it is possible if paths exist that a training special might run. If so I doubt it would run from Stockport.


Yes, in fact more than likely two 319s as the static training also includes attaching & detaching units and related faults and failures.


There is one Man Vic driver manager who signs 319s and probably retains Stockport CS on his card, other than that it would be a case of a Man Vic/Picc driver who signs Stockport CS route conducting a Lime St driver who signs 319s. Piccadilly drivers aren't being trained on 319s for the foreseeable.


No, those are Lime Street drivers - they only sign Piccadilly to the Airport as far as South Manchester goes. And as far as I know it is only Lime Street driver instructors who sign Crewe, for the purposes of route-conducting Lime Street drivers, in order for them to amass their practical handling time during 319 training. It was found that the only decent paths available to amass sufficient constant driving time on the training ECS including the higher speeds necessary was between Liverpool and Crewe - despite nobody at (Northern) Liverpool until very recently actually signing the route to Crewe!

True, one of my friends is currently training drivers on 319's to Crewe. I am pretty sure he can't do Crewe to Stockport.

 

[First class]

Some Liverpool Lime St traincrew would have at least signed a fair bit of the Liverpool-Crewe route used for their normal services, particularly Halton Junction (Runcorn) to Liverpool anyway, which probably makes the route even more suitable for traction training.

 

[childwallblues]

Then when L&M line is finally up and running, do their hands on driver training on the Lime St - Airport trains I imagine.

That's correct Doug.

 

[Bevan Price]

What's the justification for saying this? They're only going to be used on relatively short journeys.
One toilet doesn't seem to be a problem on the 333's. To say nothing of LU, services with no toilet, local buses etc.

Don't forget that they will (eventually) be serving Blackpool, where a lot of visitors are liable to consume a lot of liquid "refreshments".

 

[AM9]

Don't forget that they will (eventually) be serving Blackpool, where a lot of visitors are liable to consume a lot of liquid "refreshments".

And passenger don't get onto LU trains whilst full of 'liquid'?

 

[Emyr]

LU is a metro service, not a 1-2tph suburban/intercity service.

 

[8A Rail]

That's correct Doug.

That I know!

 

[physics34]

What's the justification for saying this? They're only going to be used on relatively short journeys.
One toilet doesn't seem to be a problem on the 333's. To say nothing of LU, services with no toilet, local buses etc.

Because it's another reduction in standards. Why were these "suburban" units built with 2 toliets in the first place...because they thought that would would be 'adequate'. Now all of a sudden one seems adequate.

 

[Class377/5]

Because it's another reduction in standards. Why were these "suburban" units built with 2 toliets in the first place...because they thought that would would be 'adequate'. Now all of a sudden one seems adequate.

Having toilets that are disabled accessible is a legal requirement. So the choice was....

A) remove the toilets completely
B) have two accessible toilets with a reduction of capacity
C) have one loo and not lose any seating capacity

The current situation could not be maintained by law so you can only choice one. The chosen option balancing the need for accessible toilets but protects seating capacity.

 

[northwichcat]

Having toilets that are disabled accessible is a legal requirement. So the choice was....

A) remove the toilets completely
B) have two accessible toilets with a reduction of capacity
C) have one loo and not lose any seating capacity

The current situation could not be maintained by law so you can only choice one. The chosen option balancing the need for accessible toilets but protects seating capacity.

So why is it that 350s with one accessible toilet and one non-accessible toilet are OK for post-2019 regulations but with 319s it's apparently a choice of two accessible toilets, one accessible toilet or none?

 

[Class377/5]

So why is it that 350s with one accessible toilet and one non-accessible toilet are OK for post-2019 regulations but with 319s it's apparently a choice of two accessible toilets, one accessible toilet or none?

Because the 350 design was built that way from the start not a later addition like the 319s. Idea seating capacity isn't changed from the initial build. Of course the 350/4s have an additional loo IIRC.

Don't think you can understand the point that the 319s have to be changed. Comparing BR stock to new units with difference built requirements is an attempt to compare apples with oranges to prove your point.

 

[northwichcat]

Don't think you can understand the point that the 319s have to be changed. Comparing BR stock to new units with difference built requirements is an attempt to compare apples with oranges to prove your point.

I understand that trains with toilet facilities will have to provide properly accessible toilet facilities and that non-retention toilets will have to be got rid off.

I don't understand why there are apparently stricter regulations with old BR stock than new stock - I would have expected it to be the other way around. If you'd said the 319s can get away with one accessible toilet and one non-accessible toilet but the 350/3s had to be ordered with two accessible toilets then that would have made sense.

 

[47802]

Because the 350 design was built that way from the start not a later addition like the 319s. Idea seating capacity isn't changed from the initial build. Of course the 350/4s have an additional loo IIRC.

Don't think you can understand the point that the 319s have to be changed. Comparing BR stock to new units with difference built requirements is an attempt to compare apples with oranges to prove your point.

That's makes no sense to me at all, IEP layout is shown as Accessible Toilets in the Driving Trailers and Standard Toilets in the Trailer Cars, so why carn't a 319 have one Accessible Toilet and one Standard Toilet?